Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Judicial discretion enables judges to make sentencing decisions within specific statutory limits. As with prosecutorial discretion, judicial discretion is built into the system as a means of enabling flexibility, accounting for special circumstances and rapidly shifting norms, and also increasing efficiency. Although judicial discretion has been widely and voraciously accused of fostering racial disparities, it has also been presented as the means to reduce sentencing disparities and promote justice (Bunin, 2009).
Federal sentencing guidelines provide the structure and limitations of judicial discretion. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 followed on the heels of similar legislation, and heavily restricted judicial discretion in federal sentencing. The pendulum swung in 2005, when the Supreme Court decided United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220. In United Stats v. Booker, the court ruled that federal sentencing guidelines are to be guidelines only and not mandatory. The post-Booker environment enables judges to account for situational and personal variables and to determine unique sentencing in each case. Seriousness and nature of the offence, history and characteristics of the defendant, the kinds of sentencing available, and the more existential function of sentencing in the particular case are all potential considerations for the judge (Bogan, 2012). With regards to the existential purpose of sentencing, there are symbolic purposes, purposes related to protection of the public,...
specific needs like mental health care. The judge remains confined to statutory limits related to each offence, in spite of the additional discretion allowed by United States v. Booker. Guideline sentencing pertains to white collar crimes including fraud as well as for drug and violent crimes.
There have been dozens of subsequent Supreme Court cases since Booker that address guideline sentencing. Like the Booker decision, many subsequent decisions rested on interpretations of Sixth Amendment rights to jury trial and the implied role of the judge therein. Moreover, the terms "reasonableness" and "unreasonableness" appear frequently in the decisions related to guideline sentencing. For example, in Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007), Justice Breyer wrote the majority 8-1 opinion holding that "courts of appeals may apply presumption of reasonableness when reviewing a sentence imposed within the sentencing guideline range," (Office of General Counsel United States Sentencing Commission, 2010). The Rita decision affirmed the Booker decision in that judges are offered significant leeway within guideline sentences, without rendering guidelines irrelevant. Guidelines are exactly that, guidelines, within which judges can take into account extenuating circumstances and the efficacy of sentencing in any particular case.
The recent trend toward increased judicial discretion…
References
Albonetti, C. (2011). Judicial discretion in federal sentencing. American Society of Criminology 10(4),.
Bogan, B.W. (2012). An introduction to federal sentencing. Retrieved online: http://txw.fd.org/sites/default/files/Introduction%20to%20Federal%20Sentencing%2014%20Final.pdf
Bunin, A. (2009). Reducing sentencing disparity by increasing judicial discretion. Federal Sentencing Reporter 22(2), 81-84.
Office of General Counsel United States Sentencing Commission, (2010). Supreme Court cases on sentencing issues. Retrieved online: http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/amendment-process/Supreme_Court_Cases_201007.pdf
United States Sentencing Commission (n.d.). An overview of the federal sentencing guidelines. Retrieved online: http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/about/overview/Overview_Federal_Sentencing_Guidelines.pdf
Sentencing Mandatory minimum sentences A mandatory sentence is a decision setting made by the court where judicial discretion is controlled by law. Persons guilty of some crimes should be punished with at least minimum number of years in prison. Mandatory sentencing is believed to reduce crime rate and is fair to all criminals hence ensuring uniformity in sentencing. This sentencing has been effective since potential criminals and repeat offenders try to avoid
The judge must choose a sentence from within the guideline range unless the court identifies an aggravating or mitigating circumstance that was not adequately considered by the Sentencing Commission. In mandatory minimum drug cases, judges can depart only upon motion from the government stating that a defendant has provided substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person. All guideline drug sentences are indirectly affected by the mandatory minimums.
Sentencing Determinate Sentencing, Impacts, and Recent Trends Determinate Sentencing Impact on Probationary Terms Reasons for choosing mandatory minimum jail and prison sentences Role of Mandatory Sentences in Reducing Recidivism The legal system is reliant on two different approaches for sentencing the offenders. The determinate and indeterminate sentencing is discussed in detail. The recent trend towards determinate sentencing and their impacts are also elaborated. The reasons for choosing determinate sentencing and its role in reducing recidivism are
" (Mustard, 2001) I. Drug Sentencing Policy and the New Washington Administration It is stated in the work entitled: "Aspirations and Realism about Drug Sentencing Reform" that disparities in sentencing "continue to plague [the] Criminal Justice System. African-Americans and Hispanics are more than twice as likely as whites to be searched, arrested, or subdued with force when stopped by police. Disparities in drug sentencing laws, like the differential treatment of crack as
Sentencing Foreign Prisoners The lure of the United States is such that various types of peoples are attracted to its shores. Among those who come to the country to seek their fortune are many who engage in illegal activities. The result of that behavior is the loss of freedom through incarceration. Prior to incarceration there are multiple considerations that must be examined that will determine the duration of the sentence for
Sentencing in Criminal Justice Systems Sentencing Philosophies: The United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) has several purposes, among them to: a) "establish sentencing priorities and practices for the federal courts"; b) help the executive branch and Congress as they develop crime policies; and c) to serve as a source of reliable data for the counts, Congress, the public, the scholarly community (www.ussc.gov). The USSC guidelines (philosophy) seek to establishing sentencing strategies that "incorporate